Rohit Manhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3042 Chatt

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Order Sheet

CRA No. 1779 of 2019

Rohit Manhar Versus State of Chhattisgarh

DB Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

08.11.2021 Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No. 3/2019, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of appeal.

The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and Sections 25(1B)(b) and 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. of 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/- and R.I. of 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions Trial No. 16/2016 vide judgment dated 23/06/2018, which has been challenged in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though learned trial Court relied upon the testimony of P.W. 2 Mahendra @ Tilli, P.W. 3 Smt. Amrautin Bai, P.W. 9 Deepak Jangde and P.W. 16 Pratap Manhar and convicted him for aforesaid offences, but a careful reading of the statement of the aforesaid witnesses would show that they have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and merely on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, the conviction of the appellant is rested, as such, he has good case to be acquitted, therefore, till the appeal is heard finally, the substantive jail sentence awarded to him deserves to be suspended.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that learned trial Court has rightly relied upon the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and has clearly come to the conclusion that on 14/12/2015, the appellant assaulted his wife Kusuma Bai with sword and his presence at the time of the incident is duly established from the testimony of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 9 and P.W. 16 and moreover, the sword has also been recovered as per the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex. P/6), therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and as such, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail deserves to be rejected.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions and after going through the statements of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 9 and P.W. 16 and the finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard, we are satisfied that it is not a case where the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant can be suspended at this stage.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3/2019 is hereby dismissed.

List the matter for final hearing in due course.

                Sd/-                            Sd/-
            (Sanjay K. Agrawal)        (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                Judge                           Judge
Harneet